Skip to content

Why Lewis Black won’t joke about Sarah Palin

Why Lewis Black won’t joke about Sarah Palin published on No Comments on Why Lewis Black won’t joke about Sarah Palin

I understand….I understand.

The perils of confusing libertarians and right-wingers

The perils of confusing libertarians and right-wingers published on 1 Comment on The perils of confusing libertarians and right-wingers

Exhibit A: You might make as big a fool of yourself as Lawrence O’Donnell did.

See, there is this video making the rounds of a reporter from Reason magazine talking to Matt Damon (the actor) about incentives to perform one’s job, comparing actors to teachers. But much more important than this exchange was O’Donnell’s reaction to it:

After casually labeling the Reason Foundation as a right wing Republican group he says: The right-wing attackers of teachers have never even shown the slightest curiosity about the job performance of another group of government workers who have very, very high job security, police officers. And police officers carry guns instead of textbooks. And as we`ve seen in New Orleans after Katrina and in countless other cases around the country, police officers have sometimes used those guns to shoot and kill innocent people.

Reason’s editor-in-chief Nick Gillespie fired back:

Reason.tv’s video featuring Matt Damon from Saturday’s “Save Our Schools” rally is making the rounds. In the vid, Matt Damon tees off on the “shitty” salaries that teachers make and argues that teachers do what they do out of love, so that structural arrangement such as early-and-easy-to-get tenure have no impact on what sort of job educators may do in the classroom. As a point of fact, Damon’s understanding of teacher compensation relative other professionals is wrong. It turns out that when you control for education level and hours worked, public school teachers do quite well (especially compared to private school teachers, who on average make $13,000 a year less). And that’s before fringe benefits, such as employer-paid health care and retirement packages are tossed in to the mix. Or job security. But we were talking about Lawrence O’Donnell, host of MSNBC’s Last Word, who used his “Rewrite” segment to question not simply whether public-school teachers should be scrutinized but whether Reason is anything more than a Republicanoid hack factory that would never dare question, say, the police. After showing a part of the Reason.tv video in which host Michelle Fields questions Damon about whether the relative insecurity of acting jobs pushes him to a higher level of performance, the wise and all-knowing – and, according to his Wikipedia page, exclusively privately educated – O’Donnell delivers the following screed

[This is] how crazy the attack on teachers has become. Comparing public school teachers work incentives to the work incentives of movie stars. It has never occurred to the teacher haters that teachers want to be teachers for any reason other than job security. It has never occurred to them that teachers might want to be teachers because they like teaching, because they love teaching, and because they care about their students. The right-wing attackers of teachers have never even shown the slightest curiosity about the job performance of another group of government workers who have very, very high job security, police officers. And police officers carry guns instead of textbooks. And as we`ve seen in New Orleans after Katrina and in countless other cases around the country, police officers have sometimes used those guns to shoot and kill innocent people. They have done so accidentally, which is in some cases understandable and forgivable. And some of the them — statistically very few to be sure — have done so deliberately, maliciously, with full criminal intent. They have summarily executed people. The worst teacher in America could never do as much damage as the worst police officer in America. But the right wing has never even been slightly curious about evaluating the job performance of police officers. Never once has Republican world said hey, maybe we should look into how police officers are carrying out their solemn public responsibility to serve and protect. No — no right wing website in America is investigating or will ever investigate how well police officers do their jobs. The targeting of teachers has been a vicious and politically deliberate action. And it has been so successful that many of its fundamental falsehoods are accepted as true by both Republicans and Democrats in our ongoing dialogue about public Education. 

 . . .while I realize that being Lawrence O’Donnell means never having to say you’re sorry, let me add some emphasis to the plain truth:Because Reason magazine, Reason.com, Reason.tv and Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes all these things, including this blog) are not right-wing or Republican, I can’t speak for those groups or folks inclined those ways.However, I can and will gently direct O’Donnell to have at least some goddamn inkling of what he’s talking about:Reason has been all over issues of police abuse like those Fullerton, California cops were all over the homeless man they beat to death.Or the other California cops who killed Allen Klephart following a traffic stop.Or who illegally detained DC-area journalist Justin Vorus because he snapped photos of cops at work.Or all the other law enforcement types who are waging a War on Cameras because it makes them have to respect civil liberties.And while I’m sure that O’Donnell has guests up the ying-yang for his show, he might want to think about asking Cory Maye, the Mississippi man who was first taken off death row and then released from prison altogether in large part due to the efforts of Reason journalist Radley Balko, along with Reason.tv’s Drew Carey and Paul Feine, whose “Mississippi Drug War Blues” documentary is a must-watch to any American interested in how the criminal justice system has major problems. Balko, now with the Huffington Post, was even named “Journalist of the Year” this year by the Los Angeles Press Club due to his Reason work on the Cory Maye and other cases.

And when O’Donnell is done digesting all that, he can relax with Reason magazine’s July issue, which was dedicated to what we called Criminal Injustice: Inside America’s National Disgrace. It’s online right now. For free. He just has to click the link.Or maybe, like Matt Damon, a truly gifted actor who is totally untroubled by the basic facts when it comes to questions of teacher compensation, O’Donnell will elect to live exclusively in a world of his own making.Make no mistake: Reason in all its iterations supports and applauds the work that the law enforcement system – from the U.S. Supreme Court down to the most local of meter maids and the least-honored of rent-a-cops – does to help keep the country and its citizens safe. Like good teachers, good cops have a tough-as-hell job that is made immeasurably harder by all the bad ones out there. And make no mistake, too, that Reason has been and will continue to look at ways to identify and call out bad actors in public and private life. And suggest ways in which education and law enforcement can be improved to better serve the citizens who pay for both.

Radley Balko writes on his own blog:

Of course, I’m not the only one who writes about this stuff. Maybe O’Donnell has had other people on. So I did a search of O’Donnell’s archives to see how many times he has addressed police abuses. I found one instance, and even that one had a partisan angle. O’Donnell actually acknowledged on Twitter yesterday that he could only think of a single story about police abuse he has addressed since he started hosting the show. (Though he did write a book several years ago about a police abuse case his father handled as an attorney.) Reason has run dozens of articles, videos, and blog posts over that period. So what sorts of important issues does O’Donnell think are more deserving than police abuse? Sarah Palin, apparently. He has discussed her more than 50 times. She even gets her own topic tag. And O’Donnell isn’t just wrong about Reason. The conservative-learning libertarian Glenn Reynolds have been outspoken and critical of police on issues like no-knock raids, citizens’ right to record police officers, and even ending qualified immunity for cops, a pretty radical (though in my opinion correct) position that I doubt you could find ten members of Congress to support. Sites like Lew Rockwell also run pieces by adamant police critics like William Grigg. So not only did O’Donnell deliver an ad hominem attack, it was an attack that was also embarrassingly wrong on the facts, which he’d have discovered had he done 20 seconds of research. And it doesn’t look like he’ll be issuing a correction. His only response yesterday was the Tweet linked above and to re-Tweet others’ weak defenses of him. If O’Donnell really gave damn about police abuse, he’d be looking to forge alliances across partisan and ideological lines to build support for reform. Meaning he’d be reaching out to places like Reason. Instead, in just the second time he has mentioned police abuse in his eight months of hosting a national TV show, it was to use the issue as an ideological cudgel to smack around people with whom he disagrees . . . on a completely unrelated issue.

Ed Brayton agrees:

Balko is absolutely right, progressives should be building alliances with groups like Reason on the issues where we agree. And there are lots of such issues beyond criminal justice, including executive power (which real progressives agree should be limited and subject to checks and balances, while the president and the Democratic leadership only thinks those things matter when a Republican is in the White House), torture and extraordinary rendition, opposition to constant military interventions abroad, the need to cut defense spending, warrantless wiretaps, opposition to the Patriot Act and other constitutional overreaches, and much more. Disagreeing with the libertarian positions on environmental regulation and similar issues is just fine; I’ll gladly join you in arguing against them. But casually lumping all libertarians — and this group in particular — in with the “right wing” and pretending that they all take the same position on every other issue is shallow and sloppy thinking.

I used to listen to Penn Jillette’s radio show daily. If you’ve heard Jillette opine on politics for more than a few minutes or watch a single episode of Bullshit, it becomes obvious that his is vehement libertarian of the first order. Lawrence O’Donnell is a good friend of Jillette, and was a guest on that show….maybe five times? Possibly more? He really should know better.

This just in: free birth control will bring about the apocalypse

This just in: free birth control will bring about the apocalypse published on 2 Comments on This just in: free birth control will bring about the apocalypse

GOP congressman says free birth control will end the human race, said a headline that I was very reluctant to believe. Someone claims that? Seriously?

But I was pretty much wrong:

GOP Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) suggested that providing free birth control would lead to the end of the entire human race. “If you applied that preventative medicine universally what you end up with is you’ve prevented a generation. Preventing babies from being born is not medicine. That’s not — that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate we’re a dying civilization,” King said on the House floor on Monday night. Before King gets too concerned, it might behoove him to check some recent U.S. Census Bureau statistics. The United States population is expected to increase 44 percent from its current 305 million to 439 million in 2050. Addressing the fact that 50 percent of pregnancies in this country are unintended, therefore, might not bring about the apocalypse King foresees.

Lessons in totalitarian thinking: That which is not forbidden is compulsory. If birth control is not just legal but government funded, that means all women must use it, all of the time! No more babies, ever! We’re going to die out as a species! Aaaaaaaaah!

On Tuesday (as Think Progress noted) on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” Sandy Rios, the Family PAC Federal Vice President, compared the coverage of birth control, breast feeding aides and abuse counseling to covering beauty treatments: “We’re $14 trillion in debt and now we’re going to cover birth control, breast pumps, counseling for abuse? Are we going to do pedicures and manicures as well?” Rios also suggested that young women are better off just having babies than having safe sex: “Having a baby is not the worst thing. I think having multiple sex partners without any kind of restraint or responsibility is much more damning.”

Interesting choice of words….”damning.” Not less healthy, not less safe, not less happy. Damned.

Memo to Sandy Rios: Men and women who use birth control are not nymphomaniacs. We may be sinners, but that’s our business. And some of us believe that using birth control is being responsible, if you’re not interested in creating a pregnancy just now. Crazy concept, I know.

A reminder on perspective regarding victimhood…

A reminder on perspective regarding victimhood… published on 1 Comment on A reminder on perspective regarding victimhood…

…from Jon Stewart:

Speculations on the economics of sterilization: Denmark edition

Speculations on the economics of sterilization: Denmark edition published on No Comments on Speculations on the economics of sterilization: Denmark edition

From the blog of Dan Ariely, professor of behavioral economics:

The Economics of Sterilization When it comes to sterilization, Denmark has had a rather turbulent history. In 1929, in the midst of rising social concerns regarding an increase in sex crimes and general “degeneracy,” the Danish government passed legislation bordering on eugenics, requiring sterilization in some men and women. Between 1929 and 1967, while the legislation was active, approximately 11,000 people were sterilized – roughly half of them against their will. Then, the policy was changed so that sterilization was still available, still free, but not involuntary. And as you might expect, the sterilization rate in Denmark dropped down dramatically – and stayed this way until 2010. Now we come to 2010. In only a few short months, the sterilization rate increased fivefold. No, this was not a regression to the old legislation; it was a result of free choice… What happened? Last year, the Danish government announced that sterilization, which had been free, would cost at least 7,000 kroner (~$1,300) for men and 13,000 kroner (~$2,500) for women as of January 1st, 2011. Following the announcement, doctors performing sterilizations found that their patient load suddenly surged. People were scrambling to get sterilized while it was still free. Now, it could be that the people who were already planning on getting sterilized at some point in the future just made their appointments a bit sooner, and conveniently saved some money. But I can also imagine that (much like our research on free tattoos) there were many people who did not really think much about sterilization before the price change, but were so averse to giving up such a good deal that it pushed them to take the offer and undergo a fairly serious procedure. And although we usually don’t think about sterilization as an impulse purchase, it might just become one when a free deal is about to be snipped.

First thought: I doubt it. It seems far more likely that the people who got sterilized last year were “some dayers,” who are married or at least coupled and have a kid or two with no plans for more, with thoughts about him getting a vasectomy “someday.” Or possibly getting her tubes tied, though that’s more expensive. But once it was announced that the procedures would no longer be publicly funded, “someday” became “today.”

Second thought: The U.S. has eugenics in its history too, and it is for that reason that I’m pretty sure publicly funded sterilization here would be met with an outcry that eugenics has returned. Of course Denmark is a bastion of socialized healthcare so it’s not unusual that things would be different there….what’s unusual to my eyes is that they decided to change things and begin charging. If cutting costs is the goal, isn’t it a bit short-sighted to begin with a procedure that prevents all of the future costs that come with having a child which also at least in part will be publicly-funded? Or, for that matter, the costs of abortion? Granted, a first trimester abortion probably costs about a third of what female sterilization would cost….but that’s assuming first trimester, and that it’s the only abortion she gets. It just seems an odd policy decision to make.

Third thought: There is a dramatically less invasive and expensive form of female sterilization called Essure. But it was not government funded even when other forms of sterilization were, and you have to go to Copenhagen to get it. It would seem like if cutting corners when it comes to sterilization is really deemed a good decision (highly questionable), beginning to fund that and licensing more doctors to perform it would be the way to go.

Another message to Rick Santorum from Dan Savage

Another message to Rick Santorum from Dan Savage published on No Comments on Another message to Rick Santorum from Dan Savage

When is a pasta strainer not a pasta strainer?

When is a pasta strainer not a pasta strainer? published on 2 Comments on When is a pasta strainer not a pasta strainer?

An Austrian man, Niko Alm, was acknowledged the right of wearing a pasta strainer on his head for his driver’s license photo:

Pasta strainers are now considered suitable religious headgear in Austria … at least as far as the transport authorities are concerned. Three years after applying for a new driver’s licence, an Austrian man has finally received the laminated card. And the picture shows him sporting an upturned pasta strainer on his head.
Nothing to worry about: the authorities ruled the kitchen utensil was a suitable religious accessory for a Pastafarian. Niko Alm, an entrepreneur, told the Austria Press Agency he had the idea when he read that headgear was allowed in official pictures only for “confessional” reasons. The atheist says he belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a light-hearted “faith” whose members call themselves Pastafarians and whose “only dogma … is the rejection of dogma,” according to its website. Accordingly, Alm sent his application for a new driver’s license in 2008 along with a picture of himself with a colander on his head. The stunt got him an invitation to the doctor’s to check he was mentally fit to drive, but after three years, Alm’s efforts have paid off. He now wants to apply for Pastafarianism to become an officially recognised faith in Austria.

As you may recall, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster began in the first place in relation to the controversy about teaching evolution in Kansas public schools. The idea was that if the schools are going to teach a particular religion’s origin story, they should have to teach everyone’s. The degree to which the story is ridiculous doesn’t matter, because in the eyes of the law religion is religion.

Since that time Pastafarianism has taken off as a pseudo-religion, to the point that there was actually a panel at the American Academy of Religion conference dedicated to it in 2007. They discussed it as a “new religious movement,” with little to no discussion about evolution or the law from what I recall, and very little about whether its adherents were/are actually serious.

I don’t know what Niko Alm thinks or knows about that, but since the article says that he’s an atheist I assume he intends to make another point about how religions are viewed by the state. Presumably in Austria religious headgear is the only kind of headgear you are allowed to wear in photos on official identifying documents. So the particular item’s form is not what matters– what matters is whether it is associated with a belief system revolving around supernatural entities, regardless of whether the person in the photo actually holds that belief system or not. Religion is an object of special treatment in the eyes of the law.

This, I assume, is why Alm is continuing in a crusade to have Pastafarianism to become an officially recognized faith in Austria– to make it explicit that literally anything could qualify for special treatment. And when anything qualifies, what does “special” mean anymore? 

Political mysticism

Political mysticism published on 2 Comments on Political mysticism

I’m just going to take a moment to ramble about a way of thinking that I notice regularly, and by which I am rankled every time: political mysticism. A political mystic need not have any particular political beliefs– it is entirely possible for him or her to be anywhere on the spectrum. But such a person is distinguished by the way in which she regards political knowledge and understanding.

Specifically, this person “does not generally follow politics,” because it is “pointless and boring, and it just makes me angry” but nevertheless has continuing revelations about how bad things really are. How politicians really are all a bunch of lying scumbags, and nobody seems to know it but our mystic. Our mystic is baffled by this revelation, and a revelation is indeed what it is– an ineffable, transient, noetic experience. The knowledge conferred in this revelation, which occurs again and again, is that things have become really bad recently. As in, right about the time our mystic started paying attention. 
This fact is both fortunate and deeply frustrating for the mystic, because she has become Cassandra— only she knows the complete foolhardiness of whatever political activity is under consideration at the moment.  There is a ground of rationality, fairness, and coherence regarding all things political, and she stands on it. Alone. Everyone else– the people in elected office, the people trying to get elected and the people trying to influence them, and the voting populace in general– are wandering aimlessly in the mist, either unable to find the two-foot square patch of ground called “Right” where our mystic stands, or deliberately trying to prevent others from discovering it in service of their own agendas. Our mystic, in case you were wondering, has no agenda. That would preclude being Right.
Our mystic regularly opines on political matters, usually angrily, because she cannot understand why everyone does not share her views on pet topics.  She lacks perspective– the notion that entirely reasonable, intelligent, good-hearted people can hold political views diametrically opposed to hers has either not been considered, or soundly rejected. She finds it liberating in the extreme to have crawled out of one diorama and into another, believing that it represents a paradigm shift in favor of understanding how things truly work. How things have, in the last decade or so, gone to hell in a hand basket and nobody seems to know or want to do anything about it. Now, after having arranged the furniture and settled comfortably into this vantage point, she can resume being confronted with the enormity of how many people have it completely wrong.
“Politics” is for our mystic, by the way, a discrete realm of activity relating to the actions of those people whose power stems from having been elected or appointed. That is how she can talk passive aggressively about being “fed up with politics” or “just not understanding why certainly people don’t get it, politically.” Even though our mystic votes– because it is her civic responsibility, by which she earns the right to continue bitching about politicians– she does not regard herself as part of the political machine. She simply pays attention to it, from time to time, until doing so becomes too frustrating and venting no longer entertains.
Our mystic considers herself empathetic, certain that she knows the motivations of others regarding their stances on specific topics, even though she is equally certain they do not give her anything like the same consideration. That’s why they do not share her views.  
What defines this phenomenon, essentially, is this unconscious conviction of isolated insight. It is perpetual without being enlightening, satisfying without being productive, justifying without signifying any actual moral character. In the depths of my soul, I fear emulating the political mystic. I do not want to become her.

“Hell yes” of the day

“Hell yes” of the day published on 1 Comment on “Hell yes” of the day

More on The Marriage Vow

More on The Marriage Vow published on 1 Comment on More on The Marriage Vow

First, I didn’t talk at all yesterday about the statement of motivations in The Marriage Vow that preceded its fourteen provisions, which included two claims that have since been removed:

  • Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.
  • LBJ’s 1965 War on Poverty was triggered in part by the famous “Moynihan Report” finding that the black out-of-wedlock birthrate had hit 26%; today, the white rate exceeds that, the overall rate is 41%, and over 70% of African-American babies are born to single parent. 

Professor of Religion Althea Butler wrote a scatching commentary on this at Religion Dispatches:

Um, Hell-to-the-yeah slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families. White slave owners broke apart families to sell, raped black women, and often confiscated the babies from these forced unions. Somehow, conservatives like Bob Vander Plaats forget to mention that. They are too busy buying into the fake history of the forefathers from WallBuilders. The statement that a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household is a boldfaced, ignorant lie, designed to tug at conservative white heartstrings and sucker in some African-American Christian conservatives. To wit, let me quote Frederick Douglass from his autobiography: “The practice of separating mothers from their children and hiring them out at long distances too great to admit of the meeting, save at long intervals, was a market feature of the cruelty and barbarity of the slave system… It had no interest in recognizing or preserving any of the ties that bind families together or to their homes” I am really getting sick and tired of the conservative meme about saving marriage, and placing the shaky foundation of their argument on African-American single parent birth and wedlock rates. Conservatives idolize the founding fathers, yet they conveniently forget the legacy of slavery and its atrocities many of the founders acquiesced to. While conservatives tick off statistics about African-American babies born out of wedlock, Teen Mom is the MTV show where teenage white girls can get their cash on by being pregnant and beating up their boyfriends on TV. Bristol Palin is proof that being a pregnant, unwed white girl is enough for a memoir at 20 called Not Afraid of Life. Put this together with all the reproductive rights rollbacks on abortion and the like, and the schizophrenic hysteria of the right doesn’t hold up. When it comes to vows, pledges, and the like, the last thing I want to hear it from is a white male conservative authoring some sappy pledge for candidates to sign. After reading the report on John Ensign and Mark Sandford hitting the Appalachian Trail, and the RNC using funds at a sex-themed voyeur nightclub, moralizing, asinine pledges aren’t going to stop anyone, including the candidates, from having sex and watching lots of porn. Add in the ahistoricism of the right, and it’s laughable that any pledge from this hypocritical bunch could hold water.

I don’t think I have anything to add to that.

Also, today Salon published an interview with The Family Leader founder Bob Vander Plaats, who authored The Marriage Vow, including apparently the worst photo of him they could find. I’m really not a fan of that, even when the person in question is someone I despise. Some background on TFL generally Vander Plaats specifically:

The Family Leader was formed after the 2010 elections as a coalition of Iowa social conservative advocacy groups, with Bob Vander Plaats as its executive director and public face. Vander Plaats had become the best known conservative culture warrior in Iowa that year after receiving a respectable 41 percent of the vote in the GOP gubernatorial primary; his campaign focused on reversing a 2009 decision by the state supreme court allowing same-sex marriage. After losing in the primary, the fiercely anti-gay Vander Plaats led the successful campaign to oust three supreme court justices who had voted for the same-sex marriage decision. Now at the helm of the Family Leader, he has brought in presidential hopefuls for a speech series and is openly cultivating an image as Iowa kingmaker.

When asked whether TFL’s support hinges on the matter of whether or not a candidate would sign the Vow, Vander Plaats replied:

What we’ve said is that a primary candidate for the office of president will not get our support if they can’t sign this pledge. If they can’t sign the pledge, we’re going to ask them questions like, “Where’s the issue you have with the pledge?” Because we want to have a discussion and a debate. And if for any reason they point out something we’re just wrong on, then we’d admit it and say “OK, we’re wrong on that.” But we don’t see that.

Are you surprised? I’m not surprised.

Regarding the plank concerning Sharia Islam:

There’s one section in the pledge that says the candidate has to reject — the phrase used is “Sharia Islam” — can you describe what you mean by that phrase and what you want the candidates to reject in that? Well, Sharia Islam — and I’m not an expert on Sharia Islam — but I think just in the brief knowledge [I have] of Sharia Islam, one you can have multiple wives, and two is you can have temporary wives, and three is I think it disrespects women as a whole. And so we see Sharia Islam as being an issue. 

Only a “brief knowledge,” yet apparently it is such a threat that it must be specifically mentioned in a statement on protecting marriage that presidential candidates are being asked to sign. Got it. Are we supposed to assume that the candidates know more about Sharia than Vander Plaats does?

Regarding pornography:

Another part of the vow that’s gotten attention was the clause about promising to protect women and children from a long list of evils. Some of those things were obviously crimes — human trafficking was one — but there was also pornography. What would you say to people who don’t see pornography as a threat to women? And secondly, do you think only women need to be protected from pornography or should men be, too? Well I think if you read in that, there’s also the word “coercion” — “coerced.” I don’t have the vow in front of me right now, but I think if you read that it’s going to talk about coercion as it relates to abortion, prostitution, pornography. What we’re trying to do is have a high standard for women and for children, as well as for marriages and for family. Some people were saying that the pledge was somehow calling for a ban on pornography, is that what it was intended to do? No, not at all. I think if the Family Leader could have its way, we’d probably say we’d like to have a ban on pornography. But that’s not the vow. The vow was [about] forcing women into pornography.

Really? Let me remind you, Mr. Vander Plaats, of what the vow you authored actually says on that:

Humane protection of women . . .from all forms of pornography. . . and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

Sure sounds to me like you’re defining pornography as a form of coercion, or at least “stolen innocence” (whatever that means), from which women need to be “protected.” Suddenly consent matters!  Just not enough to make it clear in the document presidential candidates are being expected to sign, apparently.